Identifying and Recommending Teachable Techniques from Academia and Industry to Prepare Learners to Solve Complex Problems

This paper presents observations and information that can prepare learners to solve complex problems. Complex problems can range from difficult,technical research problems to market strategy development where many variables are illdefined. The content forming the research hypothesis and models that are leading to education focused recommendations are based on both classroom and industrial experience. The concept is that the classroom environment does not typically lend itself easily to the instruction of techniques that are used to solve complex problems in industry or even more challenging; investigations in the academic research environment. This paper will focus on the comparison of the classroom to industry, so as to illuminate the education opportunities for the majority of engineering students who will enter nonacademic research and industry careers. The first model contrasts with numerous examples of ways complex problems are solved in a classroom and the industrial setting. In a classroom setting, due to time constraints and the need to teach theoretical concepts, problems selected need to be finite and resolvable by students within the extent of the topic that is studied. In industry the complex problem exists, and the correct theory to be applied and the techniques that need to be engaged must be correctly found. Due to this shortage of experience in handling complex problems, students who are entering the industrial setting from the classroom setting often have not been exposed to techniques identifying complex problem solutions. The second model contrasts documented techniques used in industry today to solve complex problems. These include, but not exclusively individual characteristics, individual thinking, literature and media, corporate systems and the academically researched strategy development techniques. Finally, results of a survey used to assess which category of techniques would be most preferred to teach in the classroom environment will be shared. A summary of the category techniques and survey results will serve as the basis for a recommendation of information that can be shared in a classroom setting that can leave learners prepared to solve complex problems. Introduction In the competitive market, companies are always looking for a new way to improve their products to create a profit.7 The “new way” is a complex problem that can lead to further complex problems on the path to a solution. They are illdefined and have barely any components to work with. Industries hire engineers to solve these complex problems, but when they arrive they use books or enroll in classes to teach themselves techniques. This lack of knowledge appears to be signaling that something was missing from their education. If we look into the classroom setting, students are constantly answering close ended welldefined problems. This lack of complex problems lead to issues when they make the transition to the industrial setting, where it is a necessity to know techniques. . This paper approaches through research, interviews and surveys how this problem can be solved. Through research, the contrasts between classroom and industrial setting shed light on the lack of complex problems in the curriculum. Research and interviews combined formed five techniques that could be used to teach how to solve complex problems in the classroom. Finally the survey results are then used to single out the techniques that are most prefered by professionals in the academic field. With those techniques, a curriculum can be formed in order to implement how to solve complex problems. Background Solving complex problems has been a necessity in order for companies to keep their hold in the market place. These problems are illdefined and often have no direction to them and can range from avoiding bankruptcy to innovating new products. In order to solve these problems, many different techniques have been developed by engineers and are used to solve current issues faced in the industrial setting. In the classroom setting, students are given close ended welldefined problems where they must solve accurately for proof of understanding. In preparation for their careers, through secondary and postsecondary education, they must pass multiple tests that include a great multitude of close ended welldefined problems found in the form of multiple choice and short answer. There are many differences between the industrial setting and the classroom setting, but it is only in industry where illdefined complex problems cause the most amount of trouble. There is a lack of such problems in the classroom setting. This creates an issue when newly hired engineers are challenged to solve complex problems they have very little experience in. In order to address the issue, possible techniques must be applied in the classroom in order to prepare students for the industrial setting. Much research has been conducted about the techniques used in the industrial setting and has been presented to industries in order to teach engineers quickly how to solve complex problems. If this research can be put to use earlier in line such as the classroom environment, this can prepare students to better transition from the classroom to the industrial setting. For this paper, in order to develop the central idea and create the connections between the classroom and industrial settings and to further define the techniques used to solve problems some key insightful books and papers were reviewed. The Opposable Mind has combined multiple interviews of great leaders and thinkers to analyze what made them great. One of the interviews were with Michael LeeChen who was the CEO of AIC limited. In 1999 he was facing a change in what stock buyers wanted and the failing of his money management firm. However he refused typical solutions as an option and instead sold some capital items and then invested all the earnings on one financial stock. This raised the stock value from $15 to $30 per share and saved the company.11 This type of thinking was described as integrative thinking and was used to solve a complex problem. Cognitive misfit of problemsolving style at work: A facet of personorganization fit and Creativity and the finding and solving of realworld problems gave further insight in current use of problemsolving in the industrial setting.6 14 Recent developments in applied creativity approaches techniques that can be used to solve complex problems.8 Cognition, creativity and entrepreneurship and Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing both combine techniques and to address complex problems in the industrial settings.16 21 Eventually many techniques were researched and defined, but it became apparent that they could be classified into five technique categories. This approach was also supported by interviews in Fortune 500 companies. The five techniques determined are; individual characteristics, individual instinct, individual thinking, academically researched and systems. In order to procure better definitions for the techniques that can be used in the classroom, further research was needed, along with the preferences of professionals in the academic field. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present observations and information that can prepare learners to solve complex problems. The comparison of the classroom to industry illuminates the education opportunity for the majority of engineering students that will enter nonacademic research. A two model approach is used to achieve the purpose. The first model will contrast the classroom and the industrial setting, and the second will contrast different documented techniques used in industry today to solve complex problems The difference between well defined closed ended problems and complex problems is also critical. Closed ended problems have every component needed to solve the problem while complex problems can be missing multiple components. In comparing the classroom to industrial setting in model one, differences emerge when assessing a well defined closed ended problem to a complex problem. The classroom setting often uses well defined closed ended problems to teach concepts, while the industrial setting is teeming with illdefined complex problems as that is where business competition occurs. Model two contrasts the different documented techniques used in industry today such as; academically researched, systems, individual instinct, individual characteristics and individual thinking. The category academically researched builds upon existing and new research strategies. Systems is a category that focuses on the process in which a solution can be achieved. The category individual instinct is a personal strategy that often comes from experience or a gut feeling. The category individual characteristic is about the personal traits that can be applied to solve complex problems. Individual thinking is a category that focuses on the beginning steps of solving complex problems. Each technique is evaluated on how they can be taught in the classroom and how they can be applied by students. A survey was then developed as an instrument to identify what educators believed should be prioritized. The survey was conducted across the nation at different academic institutions. The respondents include professionals in the field engineering education. The number of academic institutions in which the survey was conducted in totaled over 80. Preliminary interviews were conducted in a well known annual education conference and at Fortune 500 companies. Later surveys were developed and conducted after one to one conversations with professionals in the field of engineering education. Discussion Model one: Inputs on the Definition of the Problem; Classroom vs Industry Model one of this research involves qualitative discussion in both classroom and industry to find